Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

We are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the appellants Mahesh Ludhani and Harish Tolani under Sections 120-B, 37G/120-B and 292/120-B of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt and the conclusion of guilt arrived at by the learned trial judge in regard to appellants Mahesh Ludhani and Harish Tolani is erroneous and we are unable to uphold it.

21. That takes us to the appeals preferred by the appellants Moijullah @ Puttan, Israt Ali, Shamsuddin @ Maradona and Sayed Anwar Chisti. Learned trial judge convicled Maradona under sections J20-B, 376/120-B, 292 and 292/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Anwar was found guilty under sections 120-B, 376/120-B and 292/120-B IPC whereas Puttan and Israt All were convicled under Sections 376, 120-B, 3767 120-B and 292/120-B IPC. We have already referred the testimony of Sangeeta (PW.15) and Madhu Bala (PW.I7). Sangeeta stated that when she was taken to the Farm House by Nafees and Farookh, she found Anwar and Israt there. Nafees then committed rape with her. In her deposition Madhu Bala stated that she, Sangeeta and Chhavi Dhaka had gone to Poultry Farm of Salecm in a Maruli Van driven by Maradona. Salim and Anwar were also sitting in the Van. She also found Israt, Farookh and Naffis at the Poultry Farm. There Israt became emotional and started reciting poems. After about four days she was again taken to Poultry Farm. Israt took her to a room and used force with her. Thereafter she was raped many a times by Nafees, Farookh, Puttan and Sohel Gani. She was photographed by Putlan and Sohel Gani. They black-mailed her and did not return her photographs. She. identified Maradona, Israt and Puttan in the Court. She identified herself in the photograph Article 5 but could not identify as to who was with her in the photograph. Monika Jain (PW.43) stated that she attended a party in a house of Farookh situated at Fie Sagar Road. Anwar, Farookh, Nafees, Maradona and Israt were also there. After sometime she again went there and had lunch with Farookh, Israt, Anwar and Nafees. Anwar put a proposal of friendship before her to which she agreed. She also went to Poultry Farm of Salim alongwith Sangeeta, Archna and Poonam in a Maruti Van driven by Meradona. Leaving her and Anwar alone in a room Isral took Poonam out, Farookh and Archna went together and Sangeeta went out with Nafees. Anwar caught hold of her and made attempt to kiss her and touched her clothes. Thereafter Maradona dropped her outside the school in Maruti Van. She identified Israt, Shamshu, Farookh and Anwar in the Court.

23. On behalf of the appellant Shamsuddin @ Maradona, it was argued by learned counsel that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 120-B, 292/120-B and 376/120-B IPC. The only allegation against Maradona was that he was a driver of Maruti Van and carried girls. There is absolutely no evidence to establish that Maradona ever abated the offence of circulation of obscene photographs or enter into criminal conspiracy with the other co-accused persons.

24. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Moijullah Puttan canvassed that he was falsely implicated in the case on account of polilical animosity. There is no legal evidence which could establish that the appellant Puttan committed the offence of rape or abated the said offence or was ever involved in circulating the obscene photographs. In convicting the appellant Puttan the learned trial judge swayed by personal thoughts and senliments. there is no evidence on record which could suggest that appellant Puttan was ever involved in blackmailing the girls after using their obscene photographs. Girls evidence do not say that sexual intercourse was committed against their will or by using force. The prosecutrix Madhubala (PW.7) was not a truthful witness. It is evident that Madhubala had accompanied the accused persons on her own without being used any force or pressure she was a consenting party and no offence under Section 376 or 376/120-B,292/120-B IPC is made out against the appellant Puttan. No proseculrix ever lodged the report against him and the case was initiated on the basis of FIR lodged by Hari Prasad, who was a police officer. The charges were not properly framed against accused appellant Puttan. No identification parade was ever held and oh the basis of identification in the court the appellant Puttan was convicted.

As already stated Sangeeta and Madhu Bala were raped by Nafees, Farookh, Israt, Pultan and Sohail Gani. Both these girls at the time of committing the offence were studying in the school and they knew the meaning of word 'rape'. In our considered opinion it was not required for them to establish in actual words as to how they were ravished by the accused. As and when Sangeeta and Madhu Bala were raped by the above named accused persons, Anwar and Maradona were present and they were the members of the gang which conspired to get the school going girls in its net on various false pretensions and promises. From the statements of Sangeeta and Madhu Bala the prosecution has established the modus operandi of the gang which was formed to photograph the girls in compromising position after sexually abused Ihem in order to facilitate their continual exploitation. Madhu Bala identified herself in the photograph Article 5, though she could not recognise as to who was me person with her in the photograph yet in her deposition she stated that she was raped and photographed by Puttan and Sohail Gani. Thus the prosecution, has established the charge against appellants Israt, Puttan, Maradona and Anwar under Section 376/120-B of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. Charge simplicilor under Section 376 IPC has also been proved against the appellants Israt and Puttan. In view of Explanation I to Clause (g) of Sub-section (2) of Section 376 IPC appellants Anwar and Maradona were also guilty of offence under Section 376 IPC but as the learned trial judge acquitted them from this charge and the Slate has not assailed this finding, we can not hold them liable under this charge. As appellants Israt, Puttan, Maradona and Anwar were found guilty under Sections 3767 120-B IPC for having abated the offence of rape it was not necessary to convict them under Section 120-B IPC independenlly. In so far as charge under Section 292 and 292/120-B IPC is concerned, we are of the view mat it was necessary for the prosecution to establish that the cassette allegedly recovered at the instance of appellant Maradona was held for the purpose of sailing or letting on hire or for distributing or publically exhibiting or for putting the same in the circulation. Having closely scanned the material on record we are of the view that the ingredients of the offence of Section 292 IPC could not have been established by the prosecution. Even the cassette was not produced before the learned trial court.

However, conviction and sentences awarded to appellants Moijullah @ Pultan, Israt Ali, Saiyed Anwar Chisti and Shamsuddin @ Maradona under Sections 120-B IPC simplicitor and 292/120-B IPC and 292 IPC (simplicitor to Shamsuddin @ Maradona) stand set aside and they are acquitted from the said charges.

All the seven appeals stand disposed of as indicated above.